The selective outrage
of the white, western media:
by Samuel Mack-Poole
It really has been a strange couple of weeks with regard to
the western media’s agenda. It has, to borrow a phrase from Lewis Carroll,
gotten curiouser and curiouser. It seems that there is a most eccentric hierarchy
of western empathy, whereby Cecil the lion inhabits the highest status and
Sandra Bland the least. Also, let us not forget the children of Gaza, the
victims of American drones, those murdered in churches by white supremacist
terrorists and the migrants at the Calais border are all lower in the hierarchy
of empathy than a poached wild cat.
What is fascinating about participating on social media is
the way in which one can adopt a cause through changing one’s profile picture
to popularise a cause. I noticed something quite startling when I conducted a
not so scientific experiment. I went through my Facebook Friend’s list and identified that every single person whom
had changed their profile picture was a white woman. Conversely, when I did a similar search for
Sandra Bland profile pictures, only three of my friends whom had changed their
profile picture to her were white women.
Interestingly, no one whom had changed their profile
pictures to either were white men. I guess you can read into that what you
will.
When I commented on this sense of white outrage, an awesome
debate commenced. If this debate had a title, I would coin it Privileged and Prejudiced. My reasons for this is that the debate,
somewhat sadly – but also predictably -- was divided pretty much along racial
lines (with myself being a notable exception). Those criticising the very
selective sense of white outrage at Cecil the lion’s killing were black, and
those commenting upon the animal right’s outrage were white.
A number of my white friends and family were making comments
such as, “Both events are equally bad.” I have to admit that whilst I didn’t agree
with Cecil the lion’s untimely death, I certainly didn’t feel that it was
commensurate to Sandra Bland’s most suspicious death in police custody. I gave a hypothetical example:
You are locked in a
room with an explosive device around your neck. This explosive device will be
detonated unless you pick up a gun and kill either a lion or a human being,
both of which have been tethered to the wall.
I left it to them to elect which option they would choose,
but I was pretty certain that the vast majority of human beings would elect to
kill the lion rather than the human. There are different reasons for this
inherent human bias, but I think we’re more likely to save our own species as
humans possess the most developed sense of consciousness and because of selfishness
at the evolutionary level with regard to species preservation.
So, what interests
me is the fact that this inherent bias we are born with seems to have been
eradicated by the insidious tentacles of the western media machine.With regard to the human mind, it is not the best kept
secret that it is extremely sensitive to its environment, or, in other words,
propaganda. As such, we have to face up
to the fact that the right-wing press has an agenda. Now, when I talk of
agenda, I talk of social values which the media promotes.
Again, it is not
exactly a secret that the right-wing press is dominant in the UK: The Sun
is the best-selling newspaper. The
Daily Mail is the second best-selling, and the Daily Telegraph is the most popular broadsheet.
All of the papers espouse similar values: blind patriotism, vilification
of immigrants, hatred of the under-class, anti-union rhetoric, Zionism, and a
lack of social consciousness. Thus, when
papers such as these run stories in such a way which provokes outrage, my
dubious eyebrow raises to an Everest-like height. I honestly feel as if we deal
with the politics of distraction with the media agenda, without sounding like
too much of a conspiracy theorist.
With all the tragedy in the world, why is that the plight of
a singular lion trumps that of human suffering? How telling it is that most of
the people reading this know the name of the lion which was poached, but couldn’t
tell me a single name of one of Dylann Storm’s terror shooting?
The central issue is that of coverage, and also of prominence.
Do we see the victims of American drone attacks on the front of The Sun? We never have, and I would
state that we never will. As a consequence, the average westerner lives in an
odd bubble where the very real problems faced by other human beings just don’t
reach us. It is as if we inhabit a luxurious space habitat, like that in the
film Elysium where a decadent,
privileged class are so far removed from war-ravaged Earth that they couldn’t
possibly empathise with the poverty faced on the ground.
If the average citizen of the UK doesn’t know of the
suffering faced by black people in America, and they’ve never humanised the
plight of someone whom has suffered, the result is depressing; there is a
systemic lack of empathy for the victims of geo-politics, and not only is there
a lack of empathy, there is outright revulsion.
If we take the latest fiasco at Calais, with David Cameron
describing human beings who are most likely trying to escape war torn countries
and make a better life for themselves as a ‘swarm’, and the Daily Telegraph
reporting the cost of transporting of the lucky few whom make it through at up to ‘£150 a day not being
unusual’, it’s easy to see the reduction of the plight of fellow human beings to
mere economic cost. For if it’s one thing the British immigration-phobic public
detests, it is impoverished human beings trying to make a better life for
themselves.
We are also behoved to remember that the most serious
problem the UK faces isn’t a corrupt taxation system, a suspected paedophile
ring in parliament or the semi-privatisation of the NHS, but a trickle of
asylum seekers.
Empathy and fraternity are words which have vanished from
the British lexicon.
To conclude, I will argue, as I have always done, for the
rights of the oppressed, rather than in bourgeois causes which soothe the
feelings of selective outrage for white, middle-class England. I shall always humanise
those whom have been forgotten or buried by the machinations of the media,
because if I can make an iota of difference, then it’s a life well lived.
No comments:
Post a Comment